Search the Community

Are you referring to the "frisbee rule", where people assume that if other hobbies are allowed, this hobby "must be" allowed too ? We took months at meetings until a township would talk to us about this hobby (asking for permission...), and were very restricted on what they'd allow. Within weeks people who never bothered to ask placed caches there too. Some in sensitive areas we were told to stay away from. - We knew they never bothered because the park told us to take our carp and leave, and they don't allow caching there now. When we ask for permission, we know who we talked to, and provide that info. Sometimes we write it on the cache page too. Some areas here have an open, "other use" policy, and the Reviewers are aware of some of them. PA Game Lands is one. - The other 2/3rds and another cacher actual made sure that this hobby was included in "other uses" in one area. It wasn't clear before... IIRC, providing a name & phone number happens when enough people have tried to skirt the "ask for permission" thing, embarrassing a Reviewer or two. One locally has to do that now, after getting caught with a cache clearly on an area that needed a permit, but the coordinates were on the other side of a tiny brook, in an "other use" property.

Perhaps I am the only one but I do not like this idea at all. I remember that for a long time lab caches were connected to mega events, too, and with any big event there were several temporary lab caches waiting for the event participants. [I haven't done any of these as I don't like mega events too much. I prefer the smaller ones where you can talk to anybody of the visitors.] Shouldn't the idea of visiting a mega event be to visit the event, take part in the given attractions, workshops, .... and to have fun at the event? Whenever there are temporary caches just listed for this event the main idea shifts to collecting points, making everything just a statistics thing (especially with such rare icons as webcam caches)!? That is not my idea of events. I have to admit that I do not like the idea of any temporary caches at all. Caches should be listed for a longer time in any case. If you want to connect these what about a smaller version: Groundspeak may allow mega (or giga only?!) event owners to put out one (1) webcam cache. Not a temporary but a permanent one. That way the number of webcam caches would slowly (!) encrease again. The event owners may publish those up to one month after the event so it is more like a thank you for hosting a big event than a statistic thing for the event itself. Jochen

I'd examine the logs for systemic mis-spellings, peanut butter and consistent use of 'baby-talk'. If no real evidence exists that the baby is the one doing the typing, then it's probably OK. On the other hand, I once had a GF who talked like a two-year-old all the time, so maybe it's not indicative of anything.

Best wishes with your podcast! That sounds like fun. Earlier this year I tried my hand at livestream interviews, not as a podcast, but as part of my geocaching YouTube channel "Geo Elmo Geocaching". Covid was keeping us indoors and I couldn't do any filming for my regular short films; I had never done anything like that before. It was a lot of fun but a lot of work, I interviewed two lackeys, a geocoin designer, and the geocacher with the highest number of finds. I really enjoyed talking to each of them. After my last interview I decided to get back to doing short films instead; that's what I really love doing. That's cool that you got Moun10Bike to be on your show, he would be fun to talk to.

Talk it over with the cache's owner. He might not be aware of the restriction -- perhaps because he's oblivious -- so he'll understand his error if you talk to him about it. Or he might be fully aware of the restriction and convince you his cache isn't a problem. This might include him thinking that there's a logical non-intrusive way to get to GZ, in which case you can help him see why that logical approach wasn't apparent to you. Or you might find out the CO's just a jerk, in which case you can think about whether to alert to trail maintainers or Groundspeak, or just want to keep it to yourself.

I realize that this post is several years old, but: From the site of the Mass rock in Cork From the site of the Mass rock in Armagh 'If the stones could talk'

A true D1 cache should be fairly rare, as a true T1 is. It should most be limited to large, impossible to miss hides like five-gallon buckets, an ammo can uncovered on the back side of a prominent tree, or really obvious Virtuals (take a photo of yourself with the lighthouse). I think COs tend to underrate Difficulty. I think that using the number of DNFs as a hurdle for D-rating would help bring some clarity to an otherwise vague rating system. I emphasis hurdle, as in a minimum bar to clear, but not the only factor. T-rating is actually remarkably clear in most instances, with specified ratings for distance, trail surface, climbing, and wading. Given that we can accept... A. a tree climbing cache in a paved parking lot is T4ish B. a handicap-accessible cache on a level, paved trail but 5 miles from the nearest trailhead is not T1 ...then why can we not accept that D1 getting DNFs is problematic? That's the point. To make a vague, inconsistent system closer to being black and white, even if will never get all the way there. To bring order to chaos. The log types are few and finite so they need to be used somewhat consistently. The inconsistency of D/T ratings and Find vs DNF is a problem to be solved. The way you talk we might as well dispense with Finds and DNFs entirely, and instead everyone should use Notes.

During the review process, we look at two things when a fee is involved. First, is it a commercial fee or not? Second, is it a reasonable fee? For the first part, it can't be a for-profit entity - if it is, Groundspeak would have to allow it. But national/state/county/municipal park fees are allowed, and so are non-profit entities such as the Nature Conservancy, botanic gardens, and museums. For the second part, reviewers have discretion as to what might be a "reasonable" fee in their area. Since you're in Florida, unless you're planning or discussing a cache outside of your normal commute, I'm your local geoaware. I'm happy to discuss specifics if we're talking about an existing or potential earthcache in the SE USA. Or we can talk it here, up to you.

Spitballing, I wonder how hard it would be to rig up some type of 3D-printed "funky" case, the guts of an old smartphone for brains and something like the LiPo battery out of an RC car for power? Though the next person to pick it up wouldn't be too happy about the long charge time. The phone would only need to be smart enough to run the logging software, so older hardware running some flavour of Linux could do it. I wonder how hard it would be to make it "talk" to the person that picks it up, make a bit interactive? Maybe have a single, big button in the middle and when someone pushes that, it "wakes up" until it detects no motion, no signal, or some other variables to denote "stop paying attention and go back to sleep".. I don't think I have the smarts to do something of this caliber, but would be kind of cool to do. I wonder if it would have better results than poor hitchBOT did, travelling in geocaching circles rather than the general public?

Man... tell people "this is how you should do it" = baaaad. Tell people "this is how I do it, other people do it differently, do it how it works for you" also = baaaad... There's just no win. Why discuss anything I guess then? As soon as you explain your experience and personal choice you're just "trying to talk people into following your example" and that's just baaaaaaad. No, sir. If I explain how "I" do something, it's not to tell people how "they" should do it. It's to provide an example of an option that from one person's perspective works, especially if it's not attached with "this is the best way" or "do it this way". So yeah I'll continue explaining how I do things if I think it's a solution to a present problem or concern. Likewise, I'll change how I do things if I think someone else's experience or recommendation is worthwhile to adopt, which incidentally is exactly the purpose of explaining how I do things. We learn from each other. I'm not shutting anyone down, as I explicitly stated above. "Sure. Of course. So go ahead. You have my blessing." Which was not sarcasm. Secondly, I wasn't arguing against your opinion, or your choice, but you are explicitly doing so against mine. You are telling me that I'm doing a bad thing for choosing not posting a NM from the couch without having visited a cache location (that is "arguing against my presented opinion") - when what I actually said was that no one who has not visited a cache location any any obligation to post any log remotely. Tell me how that statement is wrong? If you agree, then I'm not making the wrong choice for deciding not to post a NM from the couch because "I" don't believe I'm confident in posting it accurately. Maybe I should just tell you when I choose not to post a remote NM, and you can judge the situation yourself. It wouldn't bother me at all if I see a NM the next day; whether or not it's found to be accurate. Where circumstances make it reasonable and appropriate, for example, where the CO is known to have left the game months or even years earlier and a body of evidence which clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the CO has consistently failed to maintain other of their caches which have fallen in to disrepair. If the CO has also previously failed to respond to reviewer calls for maintenance that adds further weight to the argument for posting NM/NA on caches which warrant it without needing to go all the way out to GZ. Okay. I don't disagree. Seems you missed the point of my comment to dprovan. I said: "So, I generally won't post a NM unless I have visited and verified that to my satisfaction, the cache does need maintenance." dprovan replied: "But visiting GZ doesn't really change anything. You could go to GZ, get whatever satisfaction you need to make yourself feel comfortable, go home and the CO could still go to the cache and fix the problem between the time you visited the cache and the time he saw your NM log." That's when I said: "Why post any NM/NA at all unless you do it from GZ?" First, I said "generally"... (I rarely deal with absolutes) Second, I took dprovan's rebut to the extreme for illustration. I was not saying you should never post a NM or NA unless you're at GZ. His response claimed that with any log something could change between the visit and log (true), thus essentially any log could be inaccurate, which means ultimately he's making the argument that posting a NM or NA is meaningless unless done from GZ immediately. Which of course we all agree is ridiculous. And most definitely not what I said. And I also made a clear distinction about how differently I treat the posting of NM and NA logs. In the example you cite above, some might choose to remote-log a NM on a cache with a string of DNFs which clearly indicate the cache is in disrepair, and the CO is known to have left the game. Okay... I have no problem with that. But I'd say there's also a problem with the local community: Why did none of those DNFers post a NM if it's clear from their logs that there's a problem? Rather, I could be led instead to contacting one of them, and in an effort to help improve the community ethic regarding NM logs, recommend that they consider posting a NM log - since that is what it's for. After a time if they don't do it then I might post the NM if I haven't already. Basically, if it's "clear" that a cache needs maintenance, why must I be the one to post a remote NM without verifying that it does? I have chosen to generally not make that assumption. I haven't done that whole contact-a-past-DNFer thing yet, but I think that's a reasonable course of action if the goal is to help improve the state of geocaching against "dying" if this is one of the proposed reasons people think that "geocaching is dead" (ie, sub-par cache quality not being reported). So hey, it's a learning point! If you search, don't just log a DNF if you visited the site and it's clear the cache needs maintenance, log a NM too! Just like Harry Dolphin explained he did above. Then none of us would even be faced with the decision of whether or not to post a couch-NM, because there'd never be a cache with a string of DNFs "clearly indicating" the cache needs maintenance with being accompanied by a NM log! Win all around! It's a problem for me because you don't file the NM when it's needed because you've managed to talk yourself into an unlikely scenario where it won't be needed. You not posting the NM isn't a problem in itself. That's certainly up to you. But you coming here to the forums and making it sound like not posting the NM is the most reasonable choice is what concerns me. Did I say it was the "most reasonable choice"? Certainly not! Nor did I say or imply it was wrong to ever post a NM without having visited GZ. I said it's the way I choose to post logs. You do something different, and that's just fine with me. I said that multiple times. I was countering your claim that it's somehow bad to choose not to post a NM since not having visited GZ. You were arguing against that choice, which is ultimately making the argument that we have an obligation to post a NM if we merely believe (even if found to be correct) there is a problem with a cache even though it hasn't been verified first-hand. Man, if that were true it would be better for people not to have even looked at a listing that potentially needs maintenance at all! Ignorance is bliss! Otherwise the cacher-cops will be out telling people who've simply been exposed to a potential problem but didn't immediately log a NM from their couch that they're doing something baaaad. I'll say it again: Anyone who has not verified a cache's current state is under no obligation to post a relevant log from their couch. If they choose to because they feel it's justified, that's fine, it can be dealt with easily and swiftly by the CO, whether it's accurate or not. But they are not doing something bad by not posting it. In no way is that telling you what to do. It's framework in which both of our choices are valid, reasonable choices. I'm only replying because I feel my comments have been misrepresented. But to bring it back to the topic, if there is a factor towards the "death of geocaching", it may not be just "cache cops", but "cacher cops" as well. (and no, I don't think geocaching is dead, not in the slightest) I completely agree with this.

It's a problem for me because you don't file the NM when it's needed because you've managed to talk yourself into an unlikely scenario where it won't be needed. You not posting the NM isn't a problem in itself. That's certainly up to you. But you coming here to the forums and making it sound like not posting the NM is the most reasonable choice is what concerns me. You understand exactly! So stop telling people to worry about it. There are a zillion possible reasons an NM or NA might be wrong. If you start worrying about those possibilities, you'll never post any NMs. (Well, I suppose my tense is wrong: everyone's already given up posting NMs and NAs, so the reviewers have taken over that job.) Well, of course. People who have visited GZ have absolutely zero obligation to post any log on a listing whatsoever. When you come here to the forums and explain why you didn't post an NM for no reason other than you haven't been to GZ, I take it as trying to talk people into following your example, so I argue against your publicly presented opinion. It doesn't matter to me what you actually do or why you do it.

as close to a stalking target as I have been was a few years back. someone who I had never communicated with previously saw that I was going to attend an event. I got to the event and these two guys were sitting there that no one recognized so they were introducing themselves and asked "which one of you is bulldogblitz, we came just to talk to you" heh...it was a question about a cache in another part of the country and they were visiting my home area (not that they drove 700 miles to meet me... but it was convenient). they happened to be from the town where I grew up so we had much more to talk about than a single cache 100 miles from them and 600 miles from me.

When I first started in 2010, throwdowns were fairly normal in my area. Yes, it was mainly experienced cachers, but that's more because they carried supplies, not because they got huge numbers from dropping replacement caches. Over the next few years, opinion turned against throwdowns, so now it's pretty rare for a replacement to be placed without getting in touch with the CO. In short, I think this is a cultural thing that varies from place to place and over time. I suggest you talk it over with whoever you think dropped the throwdown. Maybe you can change their minds about whether they're really being as helpful as they think they are.

I don't necessarily hate them, but I do value them far less than any other cache. I could talk about them for a while but I guess I'll just sum it up. -I remember almost none of the micros I have found. Meanwhile I could talk for hours about interesting small to medium caches I found and the memories I made searching for them. -When looking for normal sized caches I generally expect the journey to be the majority of the fun, and the actual hunt to be somewhere between leisurely to moderate. When hunting for micros I know I will be scouring around for 10-20 minutes for something minuscule. Not a particularly fun prospect. -Some people "micro-bomb" an area, placing tens of them all over an area in a wide radius. I have a fair few problems with this. Due to the proximity rule it cuts off large areas where larger, more deliberate caches could be placed. When one cacher drops 20 micros in an area, I feel 1/20th of the accomplishment in finding them, and it becomes a chore. No matter how much effort it may have taken to place them all, it appears lazy when that's all they hide and they're all over one area. Plus, finding nothing but micros over and over again gets boring! -I feel excitement and happiness and anticipation when I find a normal sized geocache. I feel nothing when I find a microcache. "Well, there it is." You could probably analyze that further but generally speaking I just have no fun finding them anymore.

Should we talk about Waitawhile?

OK. I'll confess to keeping all of my DNFs in a separate GSAK (yes, Windows) database. There, it is easy to see which ones are already found afterward (they show up in yellow) so that they can be quickly found and deleted in two simple steps, or are archived (they show up red with black line through them) so that those can be deleted as well. What remains are the ones that I still need to go out and find. For Windows users... As you may have noticed, GSAK comes up here all the time as a solution to particular problems. It is also said that there is a steep learning curve for GSAK. That kind of comment is both untrue and true. Everything depends upon just how extensively you want to delve into the possibilities. You will probably never use all of the blades on this Swiss Army Knife. Most of the things we talk about here, the OP's request being an example, can be learned in about 10 minutes. Creating and loading a GSAK database with caches is pretty trivial. Learning the searching/filtering options most used is as well. OTOH, if you can do your own programming, you can make it dance and sing and recite poetry if you like. I have built a macro that downloads all of the caches in the area from gc.com, compares my unfounds to my caching friend's, adds in my solved puzzles, excludes 'problem' caches, and builds unique POI files for my TomTom of everything. Yes, it can take some time to prepare something like that, but it's not something anyone need learn how to do for the kind of basic problem the OP is trying to solve here. There are also all kinds of macros already written by other users (that are shared on the GSAK site) to perform some common (and quite uncommon) tasks that only need to be downloaded and run by the new user to benefit from other users' prior experience. I would encourage anyone with a Windows box consider this tool as a potential friend for geocaching. It's being offered for free by the author at this point, and contains no advertising, so no one is going to profit from my recommendation except the new user.

Well, we've got that (the mention) now! Honestly, if you'd talk with Clyde, you'd have a better picture of how ugly the situation actually is. And if you didn't pick up on it here or elsewhere, understand that Clyde's ability to contribute to the current project is pretty limited. Fortunately, he's got a couple of people helping. I've also spent some time porting code for a living (I used to do printer firmware development, and all emulations had to be ported to different platforms), and it's only after having a better understanding of how GSAK was built that I suggest that moving it to another platform would be a train wreck for anyone trying to tackle it.

What else do you expect when you talk about a new PT, be it made of ALs or real caches? The numbers crowd falls all over itself from excitement. Quite a while ago, in a German FB group someone mentioned there is a new Mega-PT in southern France - more than 5000 caches (which is absolutely huge for Europe). A lot of people liked that, and many were like "We MUST do this ASAP!!!!!". So, of course you get "wows and yays" for an AL-PT(*). I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea, though . (*) I just noticed that "ALPT" are the first four letters of the German word "Alptraum", an alternate spelling (less common but valid) of "Albtraum", which means "nightmare" !

We did talk a while but I didn't ask to be 'joined FTF" and he didn't. The reason? It's not important. When meeting other cachers we always have talks about each other's caching experiences and more importantly about nice caches. When meeting cachers along a series though we tend to wait a while so others can enjoy finding the containers themselves or if we are on our bikes we try to get ahead far enough. Nope. But I see a "team" as people who know each other and make arrangements beforehand, not people who accidentally meet at a cache and "team up" to be FTF. Besides, did I miss a memo? Is there something to be won? (besides FTF )

Again, just because it works that way in your neck of the woods does NOT mean that it works that way everywhere. Just as terrain ratings differ based on the general topographical features one area has that others do not, there are various ways that FTFs are determined. You believe it's a black and white, clearcut determination, whereby only one person is entitled to the FTF. There are many of us here who have pointed out that while this is certainly a possibility (and one that is valid), it's not the ONLY way to determine who may or may not lay claim to the FTF and that a group of cachers, regardless of whether or not they know each other, can discuss it and come to some arrangement that each cacher can abide by. Sometimes that may mean a singular FTF and other times it may mean a shared FTF. We're not asking you to change your determination of who may claim a FTF. We're only pointing out that cachers in other areas have come up with some other solution that appears to work and co-exist within each others' manner of playing. If it happens not to work, then it reverts to the manner in which you play, which is perfectly fine as well. The fact that it didn't even come up seems a bit odd to me as, at least in my area, cachers tend to be talkative when running into other cachers, even if we don't know each other, be it at events or at a cache. We realize we're part of a community and socialize as such, which typically means that a P&G can turn into a 5-10 minute meet and greet. It doesn't always happen that way but more often than not, it does. Having managed quite a few FTFs, I can only think of one time when another cacher (or group of cachers) didn't talk about the FTF. There used to be 4 of us that were serious FTF seekers during my first couple of years of caching and we'd continuously run into each other at newly published caches or just miss out running into each other. Each time we did actually meet up at a newly published cache, we discussed who was going to claim the FTF if it was found with more than one of us at GZ. The longer this went on, the more it changed to a shared FTF style of play, except when the other cacher requested they be the one to claim the FTF (for whatever reason). I (and hopefully the others who feel as I do) am NOT telling you that you need to change your style of play. What we hope you realize is that your way isn't the only way and that both styles can co-exist. Logically, it may not make any sense to you but for those of us who choose to play this way, we're fine with this determination of whether or not we are willing to share a FTF. Beats? Are you trying to win something here? We're discussing various methods of determining how cachers rectify FTFs and throwing out, in essence, two different variations of how cachers determine who gets to claim the FTF. Your way is certainly a valid way. No one here is really disputing that (at least I don't think so). Since it's not a recognized thing by GS and there are no guidelines that specify exactly how a FTF is awarded (first to put hands on it, first to find it [someone else may have unknowingly touched it without realizing it was the cache], first to sign the log), we are left to our own devices and those of us who feel like a shared FTF is a valid decision are comfortable with that decision, assuming everyone else at the cache is fine with it as well. If not everyone agrees, then we arrive at some consensus that allows a singular FTF and that's usually the one who pulls it from the hiding spot, although I can think of one instance when it was the first person that actually saw it but was unable to retrieve it due to physical limitations.

I'm working on my AL; a tour of wineries near me, in our Valley. At a socially distanced event in a park in June, (the first in months!) talk turned to AL's - turns out another gal was also working on highlighting our Valley - we did have a couple of the same spots on our list! We decided to focus each a bit differently, as I'll do all wineries, and she will focus on fruit, olive oil and some of the other things produced by local farmers - the bounty in our Valley. And we compared our locations so that they are all different. She will have a winery on her list, I will have 5 and will not include the one she is using for her AL. Without the in person event and actually talking with people, Neither of us would have known the other was working the same locations. It was good we could cooperate and make each one unique! I need to get mine done and out there before someone else does one first!

Yeah, I'm tempted to do just that. I'm holding an event as I've held off hosting an evening since sometime in February. Would be nice to talk to other cachers again. I'm sure people will show up, but if not then I likely won't log it as it just feels wrong.

I don't see any problem here considering the finds of the last week. The cacher was in South Africa (vacation I think) and found some caches that were recently found by others and the owners are still active as well. Then (s)he returned and made finds in california which seems possible, too. The number of caches found isn't too big - and if someone wanted to boost the staristics (s)he could do better: find more caches, find more countries, find more of the rare icons (and not so many traditional caches) .... So maybe all the bad logs have been deleted but from that what remails I can't see anything that proves your (bad) claim (so I am not sure if I like what you do here). I think it would be fair to inform the cacher that we are discussing about her/him so that (s)he can give her/his own version of the story. We shouldn't talk behind the back of someone as long as there isn't any evidence..... Jochen

You can talk about that topic here: https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/358303-release-notes-website-attribute-search-filters-august-31-2020/&tab=comments#comment-5851476

There'd be a whole lot less discussion overall in the forum about ideas, and a whole lot more demanding if that were the case; or at least incentive to brainstorm and things through. I don't think the system needs to be changed, but that doesn't mean we should not talk about ideas for how the system could be changed. So no, respectfully, I don't think I'll take that suggestion (especially when plenty of other users regularly post complaints about the current system) Yep, looks like they went with what's probably the technically easiest implementation, combined with a few other related updates.